logo
Health experts warn Trump cuts to the CDC could hurt overdose prevention: ‘A step backwards'

Health experts warn Trump cuts to the CDC could hurt overdose prevention: ‘A step backwards'

The Guardian3 days ago
Public health officials across the country working to prevent overdose deaths may have just a month to prepare for up to $140m in funding cuts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that the Trump administration has reportedly withheld.
US overdose deaths began to decline for the first time in 2023 after climbing for over two decades.
The CDC's Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) cooperative agreement, launched in 2019 during the first Trump administration, provides funding for overdose 'prevention and surveillance strategies'. Public health officials emphasized to the Guardian that to effectively reduce fatal overdoses, agencies must work in tandem to track substance use disorders, overdoses and changes in the drug supply, and to implement interventions, like distributing the overdose reversal drug naloxone. OD2A funding made this kind of robust response possible.
The Biden administration expanded the program in 2023, giving five year grants to 90 state and local public health departments.
'The funding has largely been used for surveillance, in other words, to obtain data on the opioid crisis that informs a public health response to the problem,' said Dr Andrew Kolodny, medical director for the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University.
'In general, our surveillance data for the opioid crisis is awful. I would even say that one of the reasons that the opioid crisis is as severe as it is, and why, up until recently, overdose deaths have continued to go up pretty much year after year for about 25 years, is because we had very poor surveillance of the problem.'
But now, health officials worry the money could run out at the end of the first two year cycle on 1 September.
Dr Jenny Hua, interim deputy commissioner for Chicago's department of public health (CDPH), which receives $3.4m annually in OD2A funding, says they're preparing for the worst.
'We are doing scenario planning. The preferred scenario is that we have the entire award starting the first of August,' she said, though she's uncertain whether that's likely.
Hua noted that what she's been 'told about this money is that at least half of it is available next year. The problem is that for a number of [the CDC's] cooperative agreements with local health departments and state health departments, they're receiving that money in monthly increments, which has never happened before.'
She also said that the CDC now doesn't have enough money at once to distribute.
A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said in a statement that CDC is committed to the O2DA program and that: 'We are working closely with our funding partners to make within the next month, at a minimum, initial grant awards, which may contain less than the full-year of funding in the first incremental award … This incremental funding approach is not specific to OD2A.'
Hua said 'that sort of fog is making it incredibly difficult for us to make funding decisions, to allocate our resources.'
The CDPH has used OD2A funding to make same day substance use disorder treatment available to patients through telehealth, and had plans to expand recovery housing for treatment.
'Do you pull the plug? What tea leaves are we supposed to read, to know what course of action to take?' Hao wondered.
Kolodny said it's especially important to keep funding surveillance of multiple factors related to overdose deaths because 'right now, you can talk to five different experts, and you'll get five different explanations for why the deaths are coming down. Nobody really knows, right? And that's because we don't have good surveillance data,' he said, 'and it's about to get worse.'
Surveillance means tracking not only the number of fatal and non-fatal overdoses in the US, but also the prevalence of substance use disorders, including opioid use disorder. Historically, this has been the mission of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Samhsa), which also provides a plethora of other addiction and overdose prevention services, but that agency also faces funding cuts.
OD2A funding also went towards surveillance of 'emergency drug threats' which often comes in the form of new adulterants in the street drug supply. Unexpected substances, including tranquilizers like xylazine, and potent synthetic opioids like nitazenes and carfentanil, can cause overdoses and poisonings that are more dangerous because they aren't yet well understood.
Still, many health departments across the country do not monitor the street drug supply.
Street drug surveillance can help officials intervene rapidly when overdoses increase. Partly thanks to OD2A funding, Chicago health officials immediately became aware of a spike in overdoses on the city's west side last May.
Lab analysis revealed the spike was related to the presence of medetomidine, a potent veterinary tranquilizer, in the street drug supply. In June, the CDPH launched the Summer Opioid Response Incident Command System, a coordinated effort involving public messaging about the contaminated drug supply, distribution of naloxone and drug testing kits, and expanding access to treatment. This effort reduced overdose related emergency responses by 23% last summer compared to the year before, according to a report on the program.
The Los Angeles department of public health also uses OD2A funding for 'community-based drug checking', according to a statement from a spokesperson; 'The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health recently announced a 22% decline in drug-related overdose deaths and poisonings in 2024, the most significant drop in LA County history,' adding that 'the CDC Overdose to Action LOCAL grant award contributed to these successes.'
A spokesperson for the Maryland department of health said that cuts could mean layoffs for 28 public health workers, which would mean they no longer have the capacity to track non-fatal overdoses and will lose most of their capacity to track fatal overdoses.
Tracking the number of people who die of overdoses is the 'bare minimum' of surveillance, according to Kolodny, who noted that funding cuts are 'frustrating' to witness.
'Trump has been especially popular in some of the regions of the country that have suffered most from the opioid crisis. So one might think that his administration would be doing everything it can to bring this problem to an end. And in my opinion, this is a step backwards,' he said.
Funding overdose prevention doesn't just save lives, it also saves money, Kolodny said: 'The opioid crisis is a trillion dollar a year problem, and I'm not making up that number. That's a number that comes in part from the cost analysis on the number of lives that are lost.'
Lives will continue to be lost until we can really understand what drives overdose deaths, Kolodny said: 'Without the data, we're shooting in the dark.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to bring back the weed killer dicamba
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to bring back the weed killer dicamba

The Independent

time13 hours ago

  • The Independent

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to bring back the weed killer dicamba

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed allowing the weed killer dicamba for genetically engineered soybeans and cotton, two crops that are grown extensively in the United States. This week's recommendation comes after the first Trump administration made the same move, only to have courts block it in 2020 and 2024. This is the first year since 2016 that dicamba has not been allowed to be used on crops, according to Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, a national conservation nonprofit. Environmental groups say they will once again go to court to try to block it. 'This is an unfortunate roller coaster ride that the country has been in for about 10 years now, and it's just incredibly sad to see our Environmental Protection Agency being hijacked by this administration and facilitating decisions that are objectively going to make our environment less healthy," Donley said. The EPA said via email that it 'will ensure that farmers have the tools they need to protect crops and provide a healthy and affordable food supply for our country' and the agency is 'confident these products won't cause issues for human health or the environment.' The EPA added that the proposal will be open for public comment for 30 days and included a list of proposed guidelines on the use of the three dicamba-containing products in question. Dicamba is a common weed killer and has been used for over 50 years in the U.S., but it has become more widespread on farms in the past decade, according to data from the EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey. Researchers have been working to better understand the health risks it might pose to humans. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that dicamba exposure was linked to some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow. Dicamba can also drift far from its intended targets to kill other plants on neighboring farms and in local ecosystems, posing threats to wild flora and fauna, according to the National Wildlife Federation. An agency can tweak a decision after a court strikes it down, and then dicamba would be approved until a new legal challenge succeeds. Past court rulings on dicamba have taken years, 'leaving many farmers with questions and uncertainty in the middle of the growing season,' National Agricultural Law Center staff attorney Brigit Rollins said in a background summary of dicamba legal cases. ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts
Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts

Reuters

time13 hours ago

  • Reuters

Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts

July 24 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the Republican president's crackdown on diversity initiatives. The Justice Department asked the justices to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. The judge acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender healthcare. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. In June, dozens of scientists, researchers and other NIH employees signed an open letter criticizing the agency's actions and spending cuts under Trump that they said politicize research and "harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. The judge wrote that every new administration is entitled to make policy changes but that these must be reasonable and reasonably explained. Instead, according to the judge, the steps taken by Trump administration officials were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. Young criticized administration officials for not offering any definition of DEI while disparaging studies they deemed low-value and unscientific that the officials claimed were used to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. "There is not a shred of evidence supporting any of these statements in the record," Young wrote. Many U.S. conservatives contend that DEI policies discriminate against white people. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.

Scientists reveal the REAL number of daily steps you should aim for to prevent dementia
Scientists reveal the REAL number of daily steps you should aim for to prevent dementia

Daily Mail​

time15 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Scientists reveal the REAL number of daily steps you should aim for to prevent dementia

Experts, influencers and fitness trackers have long touted 10,000 steps a day as the 'perfect' number to ward off obesity, cancer and early death. However, 10,000 steps, equivalent to five miles, might not be the magic number. In fact, researchers in Australia suggest aiming lower. In a new analysis of nearly 60 studies, researchers found just 7,000 steps in a day was enough to lower the risk of dementia, heart disease and some forms of cancer. This adds up to roughly 3.5 miles. Scientists compared the effects of 7,000 daily steps to 2,000. Based on health data from 160,000 people, those who walked 7,000 steps a day had a 25 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease, America's number one killer. Additionally, 7,000 daily steps led to a 38 percent drop in dementia risk. People who adhered to the measure were also less likely to suffer from depression than those who got just 2,000 steps in a day. And though the average American only takes about 4,000 to 5,000 daily steps, according to the CDC, researchers said even this level of activity could lead to lower chronic disease risk. It's unclear exactly how walking prevents cancer, dementia and other chronic diseases, but it's thought to be due to regulating hormone levels and lowering the risk of obesity, which is consistently linked to lasting health issues. Exercise in general, including walking, has been proven to lower chronic disease risk, and walking in particular can burn about 100 to 200 calories per mile and improve joint, heart and brain health. Dr Melody Ding, lead study author and epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, said: 'We have this perception we should be doing 10,000 steps a day, but it's not evidence based.' The figure dates back to a marketing campaign in Japan centered around the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. At the time a brand of pedometer launched called the manpo-kei, which translates to '10,000-step meter.' Dr Ding said that figure was then 'taken out of context' and became an unofficial guideline, even for modern-day fitness trackers and apps. However, she noted it's still important not to discourage people who are already surpassing 10,000 steps to cut back if they don't have to. She said this is because 'it's not that after 7,000 steps it becomes harmful.' The idea is that 7,000 is just 'a lot more accessible and approachable' for more people. The new research, published this week in The Lancet Public Health, analyzed 57 studies conducted between 2014 and 2025. The studies included data on the risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, cognitive outcomes, mental health outcomes, physical function and falls. Overall, people who walked at least 7,000 steps every 24 hours were at a 25 percent lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease and 47 percent lower risk of dying from it compared to people who got 2,000 steps a day. Additionally, those in the higher step count group were six percent less likely to develop cancer overall and 37 percent less likely to die from it, though the study did not distinguish between specific forms of the disease. The 7,000 step benchmark could also reduce the likelihood of developing dementia by 38 percent and depression by 22 percent. The chance of dying from any cause also decreased 47 percent in people who walked 7,000 steps a day compared to 2,000. Walking may help fend off disease by decreasing the risk of obesity, which is tied to heart disease, diabetes, depression, dementia and some forms of cancer. It also has been shown to improve blood flow to the brain and reduce inflammation, key preventative techniques against dementia. Additionally, walking lowers levels of hormones like estrogen and insulin, which can fuel breast, ovarian, endometrial and pancreatic cancers, among others. And it even releases feel-good endorphins, natural chemicals that boost mood and promote a sense of well-being. Dr Ding said if 7,000 still feels too ambitious, aiming for a more reasonable number like 4,000 could also lower the risk of all-cause mortality by as much as 36 percent compared to 2,000 steps. With this in mind, she encouraged moving as much as possible within limits. There were several limitations to the new study, including lack of data on specific participant factors like sex, race, ethnicity, age, weight and overall health status. Additionally, many of the studies included only measured differences for several weeks or months, so there was a lack of long-term data.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store